Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III

That's my point. They're completely different.

Which is why the 810 is super relevant to a post about the Oly. /s

810 is not relevant. Nikon D850 is relevant because it is introduced at the same time. Olympus could be where Nikon is now. Nikon could be where Sony is now.

And why would Olympus do that? They cater to a different audience and they are doing quite fine. It's like comparing city cars with semi-trucks. And I am glad they aren't "where Sony is now", because no one really needs more plasticky overpriced gadgets with crappiest glass selection of all mirrorless systems, poorest ergonomics on the market and ridden with hardware issues like overheating. I prefer proper tools with good ecosystems, thank you.

As for being a "game changer", E-M1 II is exactly that (and I am saying that as a full frame Nikon shooter). Coupled with their PRO glass it's in many ways ahead of anything Sony has produced ever (maybe with the only exception of A9, but the prices aren't nowhere near comparable). It's just that gearheads who only care about sensor size won't ever understand or acknowledge that.

My mistake, I thought I was talking to a grown up person.

It's not a fake rewind lever, it's the same on/off switch of the original OM analog cameras

Aperture is not the same, 18/14= 29% more light on aps-c lenses.

As I pointed out, most kitlenses nowadays range from 16mm, compares to 24mm on FF. 24mm vs. 28mm would be a very useful addition for everyone, including one-lens-users.

I purchased Panasonic's Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 with Power O.I.S. built-in as a better quality lens (IMHO) versus Olympus' own 14-42 pancake. When I sold the E-M10 Mark II I sold it as a double kit lens with the Olympus-bundled 14-42/40-150. Thus, I will only need the body when the Mark-III releases. But if the added price for the Olympus kit is only slightly higher, I may still opt to get the Mark-III kit lens. It's just that I prefer to use the Panasonic over the Olympus equivalent because of the built-in OIS which the Olympus lacks. Also, the Panasonic has a powered MF switch on the lens as well.

@peterwr what does it have to do with anything? Mic. input is not some kind of rocket science. It sucks if it doesn't even have one...

Cheesy!

What on Earth do you mean Sean65?

It's a cheesy way to illustrate a 'hands on' review by showing a picture of a hand on a camera. Christ, some of you guys really need to get out more often.

Cheesy perhaps, Cliched yes, creepy no. Perhaps you can let DPR know.

I am probably "out" more than you, neither am I Christ. Please don't crucify me over that one because I am not being entirely serious.
.

Bearing in mind the that camea manufacturers want you to upgrade it makes perfect sense.

+1 for Betico & mattz10:

To be fair, it is good to show the bottom to see:
1. it is "Made in Vietnam"
2. The location of the "Tripod mount", centered? or centered with the lens? or sided...

The location of the "Tripod mount" is good to balance the weight as it is centered with the lens + close the the front when sit on the tripod especially when using heavy lenses.

But the location is not good to me as I use "Gariz Half Case for my Olympus E-M5.M2 for example. Take a look the location of the "Tripod mount" on the case:

https://www.amazon.com/Gariz-Genuine-Leather-XS-CHEM5IIBR-Olympus/dp/B00W52VAR8

On the other hand, FUJI XT1 "Tripod mount" is not really in the ideal location for heavy lenses, but it is close to the ideal location on Gariz Half Case...

I like Gariz half case as it is Genuine Leather + decent quality + every ports/cover are accessible.

Robert Soderlund,
"It is DPR that has to satisfy us, not the other way around."
Do you pay DPR for their service ? No, you don't. So I think asking politely some missing informations is a minimum if you are an educated person...

Mike FL,
The tripod mount is aligned with the lens on the MK I and MK II. Why should it be different on the MK III ?
Also the MK I was made in China, the MK II made in Vietnam. I do not expect something very different for the MK III (and I personally do not care).

@Karroly;

Q: "The tripod mount is aligned with the lens on the MK I and MK II. Why should it be different on the MK III ?"

A: It can be changed, such in my example above, FUJI XT1 is NOT aligned with the lens, but FUJI XT2 is aligned with the lens.

FWIW, I think Olympus is in better location as it is also close the the front.

Yes, My EM5 is made in China while EM5.2 is made in Vietnam. You do not care, does not others.

BTW, It seems that you like to guess anything, but it could be wrong.

Karroly I think you're overtalking a little bit here and there.
This is an issue for Liorr and that's enough.
Then you should elaborate a little bit that "the vast majority" have a 5MP smartphone front camera and want to shoot better selfie.

mattz10,
"This is an issue for Liorr" An issue ? Are you serious ? No one forces him to buy/use this camera and there are other alternatives.
If I overtalk, just do not read me. I do not appreciate your implied censorship.
The "vast majority" wants better selfie ? Did you read a market survey about that ?

Yet another ridiculous assumption. I only buy second-hand or refurbished cameras and my OM-D E-M10 Mk II cost me only 223 euros. Could I buy a camera featuring good 4k/audio recording at such a low price ? Certainly not and why should I buy it if I do not care about video ? This Mk III does not have an external mic socket, so what ? After viewing the YouTube commercial, do you really think the MK III is aimed at pros or advanced videographers ? Certainly not. The target audience is more the "soccer mom" who does not care about external mic and does not want the extra bulk. Most video shooters who usually shoot 4K with their smartphone do not use an external microphone too. But this Mk III has the advantage of using interchangeable lenses and a better stabilization, not to mention the better sensor. These are improvements over a smartphone that many users will certainly be happy with. This camera is obviously not for you, so just move on.

Do non stupid commercials exist ? ;-)
You wrote "I don't care about designations".
So may I suggest you to not care about stupid commercials too ?
I personally read datasheets only...

In spite of the first electronic curtain of the MK I, even when the 0s antishock was selected, I could not get rid of shutter shock issues totally. That's why I switched to the Mk II that has a fully electronic shutter, so zero vibrations, totally silent camera when enabled. Great to have when using a very long tele lens, even on a tripod.

Olympus actually used to be a lot better about filtering stuff up and down the lineup IMO, they've been more reticent lately, particularly with regards to OSPDAF (and the newer 20MP sensor some would argue, tho I think that makes far less of a real world difference).

Their other lines aren't being updated nearly as often, above OR below the E-M10 for that matter (PENs are sorta moribund right now)... The E-M10 line seems to have fallen into a very iterative cycle tho, where they refresh it just enough to make it interesting every 1.5-ish years, but perhaps not enough to woo existing system users.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, they're targeting new users rather than existing ones... But there's ILCs from other brands, even within M4/3 (cough GX85), that are still far more capable in key areas like video and C-AF.

IF they keep refreshing the E-M10 line at that pace it could still be a fine strategy, whatever it's failings are there'll be another one before too long... But if they fall behind and the current E-M10 III needs to duke it out in the market for 2+ years vs the GX85 (or whatever comes after it), the X-T20 (as prices drop), etc then that would be a mistake.

At least IMO... I'm quite happy with my E-M5 II over a year after getting it, I think current Pana bodies are possibly better overall values but for my use the Oly is still ideal. I wouldn't buy another Oly body near a grand without OSPDAF or some other C-AF breakthrough tho, that's the one thing they're getting lapped on by everyone, more so than the sensor performance.

I guess I just wish Oly was more aggressive at the low end like they used to be and how Pana has been lately.

I am one of those about to give the MFT another try again and use it as "advance P&S" replacement when I don't need my 1Dx, D800E and 7RIi type of equipment, had a GF2 before and been playing with the E-M5 II lately, but I consider IQ /MFT sensor one of of the compromise I have to live with for the overall smaller size and lighter weight of the package when compare to the APS-C competitors. I really like the size of the OM-D 10 II + Panasonic or Olympus Pancake lenses. a already have 12-32, 14 and 20 Pancake, like the DPR says, very " jacket pocketable".

EM10ii is probably the best bang for the buck camera from Olympus right now. Can be found new at times for around $400, and refurbed on the outlet store for $300ish.

Mshot,
I was joking of course. However one may think about a 6th axis which is the optical axis. Today 5-axis IBIS controls to 3 rotational movements (pitch, yaw, roll) and two translational movements (horizontal and vertical). There is one translation movement left : translation along the optical axis. Normally, continuous autofocus should deal with distance variations between the sensor and the subject. But in case of small, fast distance variations induced by the photographer's hand shakes, I think it could be more efficient to move the sensor along the optical axis rather than the lens group normally used to focus. This should help when shooting macro with a handheld camera and using a manual focused lens, I think.

My only problem with waiting for the em5 mark 2 is that flip screen. I know everyone and their mother loves the flip out screen, but I cant stand it. I love the way that the screen adjusts on this camera and on the Sony A6000 line of cameras. Flipping out to the side is intrusive to me.

Karroly 8k? On what screen will you see it?

I loaded high rez images on a 4K 65" monitor expecting to be blown away. They look exactly like they do on a 1K monitor. When the monitor gets bigger, you sit further away. Increased resolution is lost due to distance. I know its there. My eyes can't see it.

The advantage of 8K video, is pulling individual frames. A wedding photographer can use them from 4K video instead of some still shots. They yield 8MP images good enough to print and sell in wedding portfolios. For most use cases, 40MP is not needed, 16/20MP is enough for most real world work, just not for all science & engineering lab tests. Same thing for sensors except situations requiring FF DR and DOF, or when you don't have a lens with the reach you need. A 16MP, 4/3 sensor is all you need. Bodies wear out & become obsolete, more so 10 years ago, but you get better results putting the money into quality glass than chasing more megapixels & its a better investment in my experience. I have 30 year old lenses still useful.

Yes, when they're funny. Given all the ooos and aaaahs about high MP cameras and 4-6-8K video, some people actually think they need them. In some cases they do.

More seriously, we do not have to care how we can watch 8K movies now. It is obvious that camera manufacturers will switch to 8K when this technology is mature and 8K cameras will then be sold along with 8K screens...

8K monitors may never be popular if they do nothing for viewers. I have friends salivating at the idea but I don't know what they need them for. Higher resolution they say. Resolution they can't see. It won't look that much better than a 2K monitor if their eyes can't resolve it.

People buy 500 horse power cars to, have no need for more than half the power. It does nothing for them, but it does make them feel good (I guess)

For sure, if TV diagonal stays in the range of 40"-50", 8K is useless at "normal" viewing distance, even 4K is useless. But we do not know what will be possible in the future. Did you watch the Si-Fi movie 'Total recall" ? The "TV" covers the entire wall of the living room.

If the TV covers the living room wall you won't be able to see much of it unless you stand pretty far away. It will be like sitting in the front row in a movie theater. You can't see much more than the middle of the screen. There is a ratio in which the bigger the screen, the farther away you have to be to see the entire picture. When you move back you can't see the higher resolution. You are too far. Outside, on a billboard, I guess it can be as big as the circumference of the earth or some silly size and resolution. In a theater it would be bigger than in your home. Will you make movies for the theater? If so, the useful resolution limit will be bigger. On my 27 inch monitor - no. It does seem to help much on a 65 inch TV from my experience where 4K disappointed me when it displayed 16MP images. Maybe I needed a 100MP camera to make an impression. I doubt it. A 29MP Hassy image looks better on my monitor than a 16MP image but not by that much. The 16MP image is good enough for me.

"If the TV covers the living room wall you won't be able to see much of it unless you stand pretty far away"
It depends what you are looking at. When you are outdoor, you have a very wide angle of view and you have to move around your eyes to explore what you can see. Is it a problem ? Are you unhappy to do that ? When looking at a very wide still image on a wall, you will just do the same and get the illusion to be outdoor. Watching a movie in these condition may not be as comfortable though, I agree... But to look at still pictures of beautiful landscapes, it will be great.

Thanks Barney. That 's a shame. Olympus had a good practice of moving its premium features down the line gen to gen. I was expecting them to do the same here since the em5iii will no doubt feature the upgraded ibis found in the em1ii.

What? So that consumers can buy the cheap E-M10iii instead of the E-M1ii? You must be joking - if you want champagne it is not coming on a beer budget.

@Tom
They could have put in a 20MP sensor and charged $50 more and it would be fine. They also would make MORE profit from it because the upgrade cost to them to go from a 16MP sensor to a 20MP sensor is probably in the realm of $10-20 dollars.

You have to upgrade and up-size memory, buss, and processor to use the 20MP sensor and it will generate more heat. More than $10-20.

I do not shoot video, of fast moving subjects, so the lack of PDAF is not unacceptable to me. But it is more or less logical that, when shooting 4K video, focus errors are certainly more visible than when shooting full HD. So PDAF would have been wlecome.

I must admit, if I were buying this camera as a second to my Nikon D500, the lack of PDAF wouldn't bother me. I also owned a Sony a6000 at one point, and I wasn't exactly thrilled with the continuous AF functions. From what little experience I have with Panasonic's DFD, it's fast, but often imperfect, in that it doesn't work well for C-AF, either, and it's not appreciably better than Olympus' single AF.

I bought my D500 knowing it's a C-AF monster. I don't need every camera to be as specialized in that function to feel that it's a good camera. (Otherwise, my manual focus only FM2n would have been out the door by now.)

I don't think Oly is targeting the E-M10 III as a second body for people with other systems or bodies tho... But entry level models can be a bit ambiguous in scope at times. Stuff like the GX85 & A6000 do C-AF better even if it's not perfect or best in class a la D500 tho, and plenty of buyers in this price bracket (parents, etc) will still want decent C-AF.

I actually think their reticence to build OSPDAF or some other means of improving C-AF into anything below the E-M1 line is actually more of an oversight are this point that whatever sensor/IQ spec people are going bonkers over... Tho sticking with 16MP doesn't help them with the average clueless/entry level market perception either.

... and I thought that the megapixel wars were over after being discredited by 16mp (on a sliver of a sensor) stickers. But it seems not.

The average clueless/entry level user will buy whatever camera that person in the shop recommends because it is offering the best margin to the vendor or they simply read what the sticker on the camera says whether it be megapixels or the latest sell-words.

Most likely the camera will sell to the clueless because it is "cute", it is within their budget, and it is an "Olympus" and therefore must be good.

To think that the "clueless" (by definition) actually buy a camera based of merit by serious research might be somewhat misguided.

Right at the moment on this very thread there are some more spohisticated users considering the E-M10ii as a pocketable or backup camera for their dslr kit. Seems like singing from the same song sheet that greeted the GM series from Panasonic ...

Small camera (cute) - must be second rate or just a toy.

A6000 does not track as advertised in my experience. A little smoke and mirror act. It acts like a contrast detect AF system.

I've found that I could really use more than 16 megapixels because I need to crop a lot. I shoot a lot of telephoto (wildlife), and even at the long end, I often don't have quite enough lens without a lot of cropping. I post on Shutterstock, and you have to provide a minimum 4 MP file. That doesn't sound like a lot, but when you get down to cropping, it's more than you would instinctively think. I'd like to get even closer, but then I end up with fewer than 4 MP.

Whatever you call it, C-AF + TR mode SUCKS on my E-PL5, but it did not suck on the OM-D E-M1 (original) that I rented recently. I can only attribute that difference to the 37 PDAF points on the latter camera.

I'm shooting motorsports with an EM-5 which uses contrast detect AF, same AF and processor as your PL-5.. The EM-1 uses both contrast and on-sensor phase detect AF which is better for tracking moving objects. I have to ask OLY support about this because the product lit says it uses contrast for M43 lenses and phase for Four Third lenses. If the EM-1 uses contrast to track the M43 lenses it won't be much better for tracking than my EM-5.

Race cars are not hard to track. Their movement is not so fast, and is predictable, not erratic like wildlife. I use S-AF on the EM5, though C-AF does work surprisingly well. The EM-5 will accurately focus a 10 frame burst at a car rounding a turn at 80 MPH. Sometimes every frame is properly focused on the car. Surprises me it can do that.

Some images are not as sharp as they can be, might be me. I think I know what I might be doing wrong. I'm wondering if the EM-1 MKI would improve on this.

Would you venture a guess based on your experience?

I don't have to venture a guess.

For S-AF with Micro 4/3 lenses, the E-M1 uses CDAF. For C-AF with Micro 4/3 lenses, the E-M1 uses a combination of CDAF and PDAF.

For 4/3 lenses, the E-M1 uses PDAF only.

Here's the DPReview OM-D E-M1 review that explains it. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/7

I can tell you from firsthand experience renting the camera that the autofocus on the original E-M1 blows the doors off my E-PL5. I can only assume based on what I've read that the E-M1 Mark II is even better than that.